Originally posted by arosebyanyothername
While it is wonderful that the principle was reasonable and the system worked as it should being proactive is not 'freaking out'.

There is a distinct difference between asking a lawyer for advice, and simply walking into a meeting with the school armed with a tape recorder and a
chip on your shoulder, as many people in this thread suggested and supported with stars to posts suggesting it.

I doubt the outcome would have been as positive if the OP would have freaked out like they were suggesting he do. Do you disagree?

When I was in kindergarten, the girls used to kiss me when I wasn't ready for it on a semi-daily basis. I was too little to understand or for that
matter - CARE - at all during the time.

Never once was I scolded by a busdriver, my teacher, etc. and they must have seen. Subsequently they must have thought "awe, how cute." and
realistically also thought, "they've 5 years old and hardly even know what they're doing. No harm done."

And before some of you people get up in arms about it - no, it didn't hurt me, and if you think it could have youre wrong - if you have little kids
going beyond that point, there's obviously SOMETHING ELSE wrong.

I transferred schools in first grade and apparently became ugly since it never happened again, but at the next school all the boys would literally
beat each other up during recess for fun. We'd get "warning slips" and "detention" and etc if hurt somebody a little too much or wouldn't leave
them alone if they'd asked, but never once did any of us get suspended, because lives weren't in danger, no one was ever seriously hurt, and we
weren't ostracizing our classmates or keeping them from learning on a day to day basis.

Today, schools are slowly being taken over by administrative people who are much more concerned with HR than education, because they passed high
school and went on to college thanks to the precursors of "no child left behind" and therefore, never grew out of their "math and science don't
matter in the real world" mentality. Unfortunately that annoying dude/chick who showed up every third day, sat in the middle of class, and went to
sleep (whether he/she was abusing substances or not) only to wake up and announce to the entire class that "this is stupid" and having to do the
same amount of work as every single other person was "unfair to him/her" graduated, because your high school would rather toss him/her out than have
to try and help him straighten his/her priorities out before he technically became an adult.

And these schools were in decent middle-class areas.

I've done a fair bit of research, most in the form of recent documentaries, and upper-class areas have just as poor test scores and social issues
across the board as the middle-class. In fact, it's rare for them to be any better at all.

In conclusion - Ask your child what he/she wants to do. If he doesn't feel he'll be ostracized, let him go back. But if your kid is going to have
to hear this from his classmates for the rest of elementary school it's going to hurt him - and it's completely the idiot staff's fault. Find a
new school district and let all the parents know what happened. They have a right to know, because more likely than not, they haven't found out how
retarded the staff at that school is yet.

In conclusion - teacher's don't deserve to get paid more (since they're already making the median salary, anyways) until they pull their heads out
of their asses, or until the school districts start chopping the heads with rotted brains.

Not only will you suffer if you allow people to do whatever the hell they want to you just because of the position they hold, but your entire
community will suffer.

These people chose to work for the community. If they were ultimately worried about the paycheck over children's education and well-being they
shouldn't have made such a crappy life-decision.

It's like a priest doing it for the money - eventually he wonders why he did it at all, and begins becoming very corrupt in his incontentment. While
the governing body over him certainly wouldn't let him get away with molesting a child literally, it will certainly allow him to get away with
molesting his mind.

Also, homeschooling MIGHT be a good idea.. But that could obviously have social consequences. It all depends on the school districts where you live.

Originally posted by spiritualzombie
Pulling up a girl's pants for her is not an acceptable excuse.

Let's say I saw a girl with her thong showing in the back. Can I help pull her pants up? Can I help tuck the thong a little lower so it's not
showing? What age is it okay to do so? At what age is it okay for a boy to help a girl with her pants without her permission??

The age doesn't matter. Adults need to be clear whats okay and what's not okay. This is a lesson learned.

The kid may have innocent intentions, but the lesson needs to be learned.

Would you have rather he lied to me? Not me. Im glad he told the truth. Should he have touched her? No. But he did not lie about it. Some of the
posters must really think some kids are just horrible pyschopaths.

Yes lesson needs learned. I really hate people that comment on stuff when they may not have kids or that have kids and make it out like their kids
never do anything wrong. ALL KIDS MAKE MISTAKES. If you have have kids and claim they never mess up, youre lying.

I most certainly disagree, and had the O.P. walked into the principles office prepared to defend his son, regardless of any "fault" his son may have
had in the case, and also prepared to hold school officials accountable for their over the top reaction to a wedgie, there is a good chance his son
would be back in school today, not five days from now.

It is equally alarming that any member here would suggest that a parent prepared to fight for the integrity and future of his son is tantamount to
"freaking out", when it is perfectly clear that the school "freaked out" over this incident.

They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way!

~Sean Connery as Malone in Untouchable's~

As this was reported in this thread, this is the little boys first "offense". It did not warrant a suspension at all let alone an eight day
suspension, and it is beyond laughable that you would point to a reduction of three days from that suspension and declare the system works.

My wife works for DFS and I went home at lunch and told her your story. The only question she had was there any charges brought up on your 7YO and the
way I know police im sure there hasnt since they are not going to waist there time with this. That being said you DO NOT HAVE TO DO ANYTHING DFS TELLS
YOU TO!!! Unless it is court ordered! What people fail to realize is DFS HAS NO POWER WHAT SO EVER!!! It is law enforcement only. They show up and say
they want to talk to you or a child.. you dont have to let them. If you let them open a case with you that is a different story so I hope to god you
read this before they open a case with you and as far as the school... Just put him in another on

I most certainly disagree, and had the O.P. walked into the principles office prepared to defend his son, regardless of any "fault" his son may have
had in the case, and also prepared to hold school officials accountable for their over the top reaction to a wedgie, there is a good chance his son
would be back in school today, not five days from now.

It is equally alarming that any member here would suggest that a parent prepared to fight for the integrity and future of his son is tantamount to
"freaking out", when it is perfectly clear that the school "freaked out" over this incident.

They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. *That's* the *Chicago* way!

~Sean Connery as Malone in Untouchable's~

As this was reported in this thread, this is the little boys first "offense". It did not warrant a suspension at all let alone an eight day
suspension, and it is beyond laughable that you would point to a reduction of three days from that suspension and declare the system works.

Having grown up with a parent who routinely 'freaked out' at school over even the smallest perceived slight, I can tell you from experience and with
a certain degree of certainty that the school would not have simply welcomed the child back. The principal would most likely have simply refused to
talk 'on the record' with the parent, fearing litigation, and would have handed it over to the Superintendent, who, in turn, would have also sought
legal counsel, on the tax-payer's dime.

This matter would not have been settled before the end of the 8 day suspension, and even if the child had the incident expunged, he would have still
missed those days of school.

The boy violated the rules. They amended which rules the boy actually violated and thus amended the punishment. Most schools give out handbooks at the
beginning of the year, and even if they do not, the parents have already signed papers stating that their children would respect and follow the rules
of the district. These rules not only outline appropriate behaviors, but also the consequences of breaking those rules.

Like the constitution of the united states, the rules in most school districts do not make allowances for age. A 7 year old will get the same
punishment as a 17 year old.

It is equally alarming that any member here would suggest that a parent prepared to fight for the integrity and future of his son is tantamount to
"freaking out", when it is perfectly clear that the school "freaked out" over this incident.

If there's one thing I've observed, Jean Paul, it's that around here, authority figures who victimise people have a tendency to be defended far
more vigorously than the people who are wronged by them, in many cases. Many people on this forum seem to have a sufficient love of authority in
general terms, that they will not hear a single word spoken against it, irrespective of the circumstances.

All my life I have confronted people who've told me that something couldn't be done, or it will not work, and when I ask these people why they say
so, they answer just as you did, and that is because it didn't work for you (or in this case your parents). Your failures (or your parents) do not
instantly become the rule and if humanity took the advice of failures we would still be living in caves searching for fire.

Your description of a school administrator refusing to speak on record and simply passing the problem up a hill is one example of how some school
administrators work. Not all work in the same way, and refusing to allow a parent record the meeting is damning in itself and a smart administer
would understand this. Your remark about the "taxpayer's dime" would be a reflection on the administrator you described and most certainly would
not be a reflection on the O.P.

Indeed, the more you insist that this matter would not have been settled before the end of the eight day suspension, the more I read a strong argument
as to why the O.P. should have walked into that office fully prepared to record the conversation. The problem would not have been the O.P. who would
have been doing a fathers job, which is to protect them and prepare them for the cold cruel world that little boy will one day face alone. The
problem would be the system you so laughably declare works.

Violating rules does not demand an instant eight day suspension! Given that the O.P. is facing state compulsory education laws, and given the
incident that caused this thread, it was the school administrators who violated the rules and in a way that merited much more than a diplomatic
meeting where a poor father has to accept his little boy deserved suspension simply because he acted inappropriately for the first damn time!

Instead of reifying why don't you show any school handbook, (it doesn't necessarily have to be from Missouri, any one will do) that outlines a boy
pulling a girls pants up and declaring her butt crack is gross is a violation of a rule that warrants an eight day suspension. Show us this hand book
and stop asking us to take your word for it. By the way, the Constitution for the United States does not - except for perhaps treason - make any
rules, or laws prohibiting the People from anything. The Constitution proper that is (Before the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments). That
Constitution is both a grant, and a prohibitive document towards government, not the People.

The Constitution is not a rule book the people can turn to in order to know what they can and cannot do, and before the Bill of Rights were added to
that Constitution, there were plenty of Founders outraged at the idea that self evident rights needed to be listed. What is self evident is self
evident, and a little boy pulling up a little girls pants to correct a "butt crack" problem is self evident in its nature and that nature is not
anything at all that warrants suspension.

Originally posted by LadyJae
Poor little ones. They aren't allowed to be children anymore.

Perhaps the best defense is a good offense. It would seem your son was defending himself against a sexual assault by the young girl.

So very, very sad

I fully agree. If the moron parents of the girl decide to press forward, turn the idiocy back onto them.

Why was this child prancing around half naked around the classroom? What was the teacher doing to prevent this? Have the kids been INSTRUCTED not to
do what he did by the staff? (not that it's needed, but we're talking to idiots here)

There are SO MANY ways you can turn this around. And as far as what you tell your son... not much, he did nothing wrong to warrant such attention.
Should he have helped her get her pants up? Probably not. Just make sure he knows not to help others get dressed in public.

And if he does end up getting transferred -- it's probably for the better. He's only been at that school for a year and a switch won't be
noticeable. On the other hand, if the staff at the school he's at right now are as incompetent as they sound, it's better for your son to get him as
far away as possible, a blessing in disguise.

Sorry to hear this happened man. Just another reminder why I'm slowly finding myself reading less and less news -- this country is populated by
imbeciles and my patience is wearing thin.

That teacher has the -right- to say anything she wants to according to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment isn't an "I can say whatever I want, whenever I want so deal"
First of all a teacher would have signed a contract saying that the principle and school system are in charge of discipline.
The contract would limit what she can and can't say.
The first amendment applies to free speech, but when it comes to a job, your employment contract has a right to limit that.
Even if the contract she signed didn't limit her powers to deferring to the principle, there is a code of conduct handbook she signed and a policies
and procedures handbook as well that would tell her what she can and can't say.
Threatening a parent with CPS DFS or whatever was more than not against the procedures hand book.
So again she violated the P&P portion of her contract which she signed.
She was 100% in the wrong with that threat.

On top of that, the first amendment does not give you the right to assault someone, and telling someone something legal can be a form of assault.
It caused undo stress upon the OP, that actually can be construed as a threat that she made and therefore not protected speech.

Should she be fired, no.
She should be told to shut up and to let the principle handle such matters in the future.

All my life I have confronted people who've told me that something couldn't be done, or it will not work, and when I ask these people why they say
so, they answer just as you did, and that is because it didn't work for you (or in this case your parents). Your failures (or your parents) do not
instantly become the rule and if humanity took the advice of failures we would still be living in caves searching for fire.

While I applaud the intent of what you are trying to do here, Jean Paul, I would encourage you not to waste your energy.

As I may have said earlier in this thread, there are a number of people on this forum who value the predictability that they think adherence to
authority will give them; and they value that to such a high degree, that they are willing to defend the perceived sources of said authority,
irrespective of the magnitude of said authorities' misdeeds. It's a lot like the manner in which I heard about people passively allowing themselves
to be loaded onto the trains that were going to the concentration camps during WW2, when at least some of them must have known where they were
going.

What's sad in my experience is the parents who get all uppity and demand the most extreme punishment against others kids are usually the ones that
bring out the entire legal Infantry and Calvary when they think their precious angel is being falsely accused.

It's also my experience that parents like this don't produce precious angels but sociopaths that help ruin society for everyone else.

I once knew a teachers kid who could literally beat other students and not even be spoken to, but if you gave him a don't mess with me look, or worse
blocked and he hurt himself you would be in as much trouble if you had beat another kid bloody.

I hate eugenics because of the inherent racism, but there are just some people who shouldn't raise kids.
If not for the sake of their potential kids, then for the potential damage it will cause the rest of us.
(Yeah it's a harsh statement, I'm grumpy when the weather changes and makes me sore).

The age doesn't matter. Adults need to be clear whats okay and what's not okay. This is a lesson learned

The only problem I see with this statement is there is a "warped" sense of what is OKAY and what isn't by many adults in these "modern" times.
Many of us are brain-washed to be politically correct and more than that ad nauseum! Is there a single subject or act that we haven't dis-mantled
and analyzed, and when put back together was more corrupt then to begin with? Believe me Sir, I am on your side, but I sense a very large and
unscrupulous AGENDA being shoved down our throats...or atleast they're sure trying!

Back in my day, if a teacher's son was pulling that sort of stuff, someone would catch him outside of class and beat the tar out of him, and do so
regularly until he learned some respect. We didn't have the type of bullying that modern schools seem to have. Bullies weren't tolerated, and
beating up a bully was a quick way to popularity.

It was a better system than what political correctness allows to happen these days.

I most certainly disagree, and had the O.P. walked into the principles office prepared to defend his son, regardless of any "fault" his son may have
had in the case, and also prepared to hold school officials accountable for their over the top reaction to a wedgie, there is a good chance his son
would be back in school today, not five days from now. It is equally alarming that any member here would suggest that a parent prepared to fight for
the integrity and future of his son is tantamount to "freaking out", when it is perfectly clear that the school "freaked out" over this incident.

Right, so any child who's parents don't care enough to argue (because there are uncaring parents out there) is SOL, and we should just overlook the
morons who "freaked out" because little kids were acting like little kids.

WRONG.

It's there job to recognize these situations for what they are, and if they truely care about their job, they, IMO, should have to talk to a counselor
for a determined amount of time.

Not like elementary school counselors are putting their degrees to much use, otherwise.

It was a private school, so he was allowed to stay on campus while we weren't if not in the official care of the school.
He simply stopped leaving campus without mommy once he realized he was powerless off campus.
Still we were able to get him a few times before he he wised up.
We wised up too, every time he tried to associate with us we found something else to do that he couldn't keep pace with.

I like your thinking though, I had stood up to many bullies in my day.
The bullied are alwasye grateful, and save the kid I mentioned most bullies learned being a bully was a quick way to be outnumbered.

Growing up used to be a right of passage, we all made it through in one form or another.
I just don't get why society seems to be denying the school yard education to the newer generations.

That teacher has the -right- to say anything she wants to according to the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment isn't an "I can say whatever I want, whenever I want so deal"
First of all a teacher would have signed a contract saying that the principle and school system are in charge of discipline.
The contract would limit what she can and can't say.
The first amendment applies to free speech, but when it comes to a job, your employment contract has a right to limit that.
Even if the contract she signed didn't limit her powers to deferring to the principle, there is a code of conduct handbook she signed and a policies
and procedures handbook as well that would tell her what she can and can't say.
Threatening a parent with CPS DFS or whatever was more than not against the procedures hand book.
So again she violated the P&P portion of her contract which she signed.
She was 100% in the wrong with that threat.

On top of that, the first amendment does not give you the right to assault someone, and telling someone something legal can be a form of assault.
It caused undo stress upon the OP, that actually can be construed as a threat that she made and therefore not protected speech.

Should she be fired, no.
She should be told to shut up and to let the principle handle such matters in the future.

You quoted the first part of my post without quoting the second.

The teacher -certainly- has the RIGHT to say whatever she want to under the First Amendment (baring unprotected speech as indicated by the
Supreme Court yadda yadda). She can say -whatever- she wants. This is a fact. She cannot be jailed for saying whatever she wants. Can she lose her
job? Yes. Can she be reprimanded? Yes.

It is not for you or I to state what is or isn't protected speech. Either she is guilty of something or she isn't. Legally speaking, she is innocent
until proven guilty in a court of law, and as this isn't going to trial, she is not guilty of any wrong doing.

I am arguing from a position of ignorance. Please cite the P&P portion of her contract so that I can be better informed.

I think the 5 days is a much too severe a punishment. I would have pushed it hard to get it reduced to the 2 days he has already served. If they
refused then the lawyers would enter the picture and the principal could justify the penalty to the school board. Given this choice I think the
Principal would have agreed to 2 days.

Now it is your duty to write the school board and have them review how this case was handled, especially the teacher who ran to DCF. That is
inexcusable and needs to be dealt with. It ain't her place to do that, period!

All my life I have confronted people who've told me that something couldn't be done, or it will not work, and when I ask these people why they say
so, they answer just as you did, and that is because it didn't work for you (or in this case your parents). Your failures (or your parents) do not
instantly become the rule and if humanity took the advice of failures we would still be living in caves searching for fire.

Yawn. Pretty tedious and uncompelling argument. One of us is citing actual experience, one of us is letting gangster movie quotes do our heavy
lifting.

Violating rules does not demand an instant eight day suspension!

You seem to have me at a disadvantage. Could you direct me to where you got you information on the policies of this school district? Oh, that's
right.. you don't know the rules either.. and are arguing from a position of ignorance yourself. This is a pointless pursuit until the policy is
known.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.